"If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney will say at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington....

UPDATE: I should note that I think Romney's "aiding a surrender to terror" line is quite over-the-top; whatever Clinton's and Obama's possible faults may be, they surely aren't planning to "surrender to terror" or do anything close. (Even promptly withdrawing troops from Iraq, something I don't agree with, can't be fairly described as that.) I didn't focus on that sentence when I first posted it -- I just copied and pasted what struck me as an important news item -- or else I'd have noted this at the outset.

Pathetic:
Eugene includes this language in his post below, but I want to stop and comment on the sentence about terrorism in Mitt Romney's address announcing that he is suspending his campaign:

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, . . . I'd forestall the launch of a national campaign. Frankly, I would be making it easier for Senator Clinton or Obama to win. Frankly, in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

If you watch the video, this was no off-the-cuff remark. It was a big applause line, delivered carefully and deliberately. After he delivers the line, Romney grins broadly and soaks in the moment of his having delivered a good zinger.

But come on, folks. "Surrender to terror"? You can certainly argue that one candidate or one party is better at responding to the threat of terrorism. But suggesting that the other side would "surrender" to terror is absurd. This speech should have been a display of statesmanship, not an audition to be the next Ann Coulter.